[lost_tourist]

We don't have debtors prisons. While there are specific cases like this where some jail time would seem just, overall it's a negative for society. It's a civil matter for a reason. I do think such cases should rip the corporate veil to shreds though, and the billionaires would have to pay up.

[mlyle]

> We don't have debtors prisons.

No one's suggesting such.

We have plenty of disputed behavior and harms that are within the purview of civil courts, and then more egregious versions that are crimes. IMO, withholding significant pay that you have the ability to pay and is unambiguously contractually owed causes pretty serious harm, and society has strong reasons to criminalize this conduct.

Accepting services from someone while having no intent to honor the contract, hoping that disproportionate resources will prevent them from enforcing the contract "feels" like fraud: so let's codify it.

[hn_throwaway_99]

Exactly: we already have plenty of areas where a civil case can turn into a criminal one like fraud (just ask Elizabeth Holmes).

Saying "we'll pay you severance" with 0 intention to do so sure sounds like fraud to me.

[JieJie]

Wage theft and fraud are crimes that state attorneys general do prosecute.

https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/attorney-general-f...

[jntvjnvutnuvt]

Not paying severance is not wage theft. Severance was not included in Twitter's employee contract.

[piva00]

The kind of technical loophole that America's law system seems to be riddled with (and the "akshually" crowd kinda loves to play with)...

It's not technically wage theft, in spirit it's pretty similar to wage theft since the termination of employment contracts had severance payment as a clause.

Potato, potato.

[mlyle]

> Severance was not included in Twitter's employee contract.

It likely was once promises were made to continue to pay severance for at least one year, and employees relied upon this promise (instead of immediately seeking to work elsewhere).

[jntvjnvutnuvt]

Severance is typically not "unambiguously contractually owed." The fact that many here would want company executives imprisoned for not offering goodwill boggles my mind.

[piva00]

No, they should be imprisoned for misleading, by defrauding. The "goodwill" was promised, in legal documents, and not fulfilled, that same goodwill is a major leverage against the employee, if such a promise was made you will take life decisions differently than if there was no such promise, when that promise is broken and your life is affected (as in: you'd move somewhere else and try a different venture, now you can't because you need to look for a job right now) then it's a fraud and a billionaire should really suffer just due to the power imbalance in the equation.

The fact that you are defending this practice makes me almost want to ask you how do their boots taste like...

[locopati]

It may not be owed but it was promised, presumably in legally enforceable documents that would have been used if the former employees broke the terms of severance.

[threeseed]

> overall it's a negative for society

I would disagree.

We shouldn't allow criminal behaviour to be tolerated just because it's white collar.

And the whole point of laws is to protect the vulnerable in our society which definitely includes the innocent employees who are being harmed for doing nothing other than working for Twitter/X.

[jntvjnvutnuvt]

How is it criminal behavior to not offer severance, which 99% of companies don't offer? Not offering severance has nothing to do with criminal behavior. If so, 99% of small businesses owners would be imprisoned in your world.

[hn_throwaway_99]

Why do you keep posting stuff like this, when people are very clearly not arguing this?

Nobody believes that executives should be jailed for not offering severance - that's not what is being discussed. But if part of a termination agreement includes a guarantee of severance (and these termination agreements basically always include responsibilities for the employee to uphold in order to receive that sentence), and then you just decide not to pay it, and it looks like you basically never had the intent to pay it, that looks a lot more like fraud.

[lightbritefight]

The purchase contract had language in that that current twitter employees would be paid out severance via the then current twitter standards. He signed said contract.

He also publicly promised severance to all employees he laid off, when laying them off, then tried to back out of it after the fact.

So we have both contract law and public statements that he owes severance to thousands of people, and now is just refusing to pay. What kind of behavior is that?

[KingMob]

You're responding to something not in the parent comment.

"Protect the vulnerable" there probably means enforcing contractual obligations to pay severance that was promised, not to offer severance in the first place.

[locopati]

Elon? Is that you?

[KingMob]

Until corporate personhood means Twitter/X can be thrown in jail, I don't think debtors prisons are relevant.